3. Main Results
In this section, we assume the following.
is an asymptotically nonexpansive mapping and is a nonexpansive mapping for such that the sequence is defined as in Algorithm 1.
is pseudomonotone and uniformly continuous on C, s.t. for each with .
is a contraction with constant , and with .
and such that the following is the case:
- (i)
and ;
- (ii)
and ;
- (iii)
and .
Lemma 6. The Armijo-type search rule (5) is well defined, and the inequality holds: . Recall that the Armijo-type search rule is a backtracking line search that determines the amount to move along a given search direction and involves starting with a relatively large estimate of the step size for movement along the search direction and iteratively shrinking the step size until a decrease as given in (5) is observed.
Proof. Since and A are uniformly continuous on C, one has . If , then it is clear that . If , then there exists an integer satisfying (5). □
Since is firmly nonexpansive, one knows that . Placing and , one obtains , and hence .
Lemma 7. Let and let the function be defined by (6). Then, and . In particular, if , then .
Proof. The first assertion of Lemma 6 is obvious. In what follows, let us show the second assertion. Indeed, let
. Then, by Lemma 3 one has
. Thus, the following is the case.
On the other hand, by (5) one has the following.
Thus, by Lemma 6, we obtain the following.
Combining (7) and (8), we obtain the following.
Consequently, , as asserted. □
Lemma 8. Let be bounded sequences generated by Algorithm 3. If and and such that , then .
Algorithm 3 Initialization: Given . Pick . |
Iterative Steps: Given the current iterate , calculate as follows: |
Step 1. Set , and compute and . |
Step 2. Compute , where and is the smallest nonnegative integer j satisfying |
|
Step 3. Compute and where and |
|
Set and return to Step 1.
|
Proof. By Algorithm 3,
, and hence
. Utilizing the assumptions
and
, we have the following.
By Algorithm 3, we obtain
, which immediately yields the following.
Since
and
are bounded, we obtain
, which together with
implies the following.
Moreover, from
, we have
, and hence the following is the case.
According to the uniform continuity of A on C, one knows that is bounded (due to Lemma 1). Note that is bounded as well. Thus, from (12), we obtain . Meantime, observe that . Since , from the uniform continuity of A we obtain , which together with (12) yields . □
Next we show that
for
. Indeed, note that for
, the following is the case.
Hence, from (10) and the assumption
, we obtain
for
. This immediately implies that the following is the case.
We now take a sequence
satisfying
as
. For each
, we denote by
the smallest positive integer such that the following is the case.
Since
is decreasing, it is clear that
is increasing. Noticing that
guarantees
, we set
, and we obtain
. Thus, from (14), we obtain
. Again from the pseudomonotonicity of
A, we have
. This immediately results in
We claim that . Indeed, from and , we obtain . Using the assumption on A, instead of the sequentially weak continuity of A, we obtained (otherwise, if , then z is a solution). Note that and as . Thus, it follows that . Hence, we obtain as .
Next, we show that . Indeed, from and , we obtain . From (13), we have for . Note that Lemma 5 guarantees the demiclosedness of at zero for . Thus, . Since r is an arbitrary element in the finite set , we obtain . Simultaneously, from and , we obtain . From (11), we have . From Lemma 5, it follows that is demiclosed at zero, and hence we obtain , i.e., . On the other hand, letting , we deduce that the right-hand side of (15) tends to zero by the uniform continuity of A, the boundedness of , and the limit . Thus, we obtain . By Lemma 3, we have . Therefore, .
Lemma 9. Let be the sequence constructed by Algorithm 3. Then, the following is the case. Proof. To show the conclusion, we consider two cases. In the case when
, we might assume that there exists a constant
such that
, which hence yields the following.
This together with results in . □
In the case, when
, we might pick a subsequence
of
such that the following is the case.
Let
. Then,
. Since
, we have the following.
From the step size rule (5) and the definition of
, it follows that the following is the case.
Since
A is uniformly continuous on bounded subsets of
C, (18) ensures the following.
This, however, contradicts with (17). Thus, it follows that .
Theorem 1. Let be the sequence constructed by Algorithm 3. Assume that . Then, the following is the case:where is the unique solution of the VIP: . Proof. Since
and
, we may assume, without loss of generality, that
and
. We claim that
is a contraction. Indeed, it is clear that
, which implies that
is a contraction. Banach’s Contraction Mapping Principle guarantees that
has a unique fixed point. Say
, that is,
. Thus, there exists a unique solution
of the VIP
□
If
, then
for
and
, together with Algorithm 3, imply the following.
Hence, using the continuity of
A on
C, we obtain that
and the following is the case.
In addition, it is clear that the following is obtained.
Next, we show the sufficiency of the theorem. To this aim, we assume and divide the proof of sufficiency into several steps.
Step 1. We show that
is bounded. Indeed, take an arbitrary
. Then,
and
. We claim that the following inequality holds.
Indeed, one has the following.
Thus, the following is the case.
Then, the following is obtained:
which together with (22) yields the following.
Thus, from (23) and
, the following is the case.
Therefore, we obtain . Thus, is bounded, and so are the sequences .
Step 2. We show that the following is the case.
To prove this, we first note that the following is the case:
where
for some
. On the other hand, from (23) one has the following.
Substituting (24) into (25), one obtains the following.
This immediately implies the following.
Step 3. We show the following.
Indeed, we claim that for some
, the following obtains.
Since the sequence
is bounded, there exists
such that
. This ensures that for all
, the following is the case:
which hence implies that
is
L-Lipschitz continuous on
. By Lemmas 2 and 7, we obtain
Combining (21) and (27), we obtain the following.
From Algorithm 3, (23), and (26), the following is obtained.
This immediately yields the following.
Step 4. Let us obtain the following.
Indeed, from Algorithm 3 and (23), one obtains the following.
Step 5. Let
, we deduce from (28) that the following is the case.
We need to show that
. Substituting
, from Step 2, we obtain the following.
Since
,
and
. From the boundedness of
, one obtains the following.
Substituting
, from Step 3, we obtain the following.
Since
,
, and
(due to the assumption), from the boundedness of
, one obtains the following.
Hence, by Lemma 9, we deduce the following.
Obviously, assumption
together with (31) implies the following.
From the boundedness of
, it follows that there exists a subsequence
of
such that the following is the case.
Since
H is reflexive and
is bounded, we may assume, without loss of generality, that
. Thus, from (33), one obtains the following.
Thus, it follows from
(due to (32)) and
that
. Since
and
, by Lemma 8, we infer that
. Hence, from (20) and (34), one obtains the following:
which immediately results in the following.
Note that
, and the following is the case.
Consequently, by applying Lemma 4 to (29), one has . This completes the proof.
Theorem 2. Let be nonexpansive and the sequence be constructed by the modified version of Algorithm 3; that is, for any initial , the following is the case:where for each , , and are chosen as in Algorithm 3. Then, the following is the case:where is the unique solution of the VIP: . Proof. The necessity is obvious. Thus, we show the sufficiency. Assume and divide the rest of the proof into several steps. □
Step 1. is bounded: Indeed, using the same argument as in Step 1 of the proof of Theorem 1, we obtain the desired assertion.
Step 2. We obtain the following:
for some
. Indeed, using the same arguments as in Step 2 of the proof of Theorem 1, we obtain the desired assertion.
Step 3. We prove that the following is the case.
Indeed, similar arguments similar to those in Step 3 of the proof of Theorem 1 provide the assertion.
Step 4. We show the following.
By Step 4 of the proof of Theorem 1, we obtain the desired conclusion.
Step 5. converges strongly to the unique solution
of the VIP (20): substitute
and we deduce from Step 4 that the following is the case.
We show that
. Using the same arguments as those of (30) and (31), we obtain the following.
Now, the following is obtained.
From (38),
,
, and the boundedness of
, it follows that, as
, the following is the case.
Obviously, combining (38) and
guarantees the following.
The rest of the proof is similar to the arguments in Step 5 of the proof of Theorem 1.
Next, we introduce modified Mann-type subgradient-like extragradient algorithm.
Note that Lemmas 6–9 are valid for Algorithm 4.
Algorithm 4Initialization: Given . Let be arbitrary. |
Iterative Steps: Given the current iterate , calculate as follows: |
Step 1. Set , and compute and . |
Step 2. Compute , where and is the smallest nonnegative integer j satisfying |
|
Step 3. Compute and where and |
|
Again set and go to Step 1.
|
Theorem 3. Let be the sequence constructed by Algorithm 4. Assume that . Then, the following is the case:where is the unique solution of the VIP: . Proof. Using the same arguments as in the proof of Theorem 1, we deduce that there exists a unique solution of the VIP (20) and that the necessity of the theorem is valid. □
For sufficiency, assume and consider these steps.
Step 1. We show that
is bounded. Indeed, using the same arguments as in Step 1 of the proof of Theorem 1, we obtain that inequalities (21)–(23) hold. Thus, from (23) and
, the following is the case.
Hence, . Thus, is bounded.
Step 2. We show the following.
To prove this, we first note that the following is the case.
The desired conclusion follows from Step 2 of the proof of Theorem 1.
Step 3. We show the following.
Indeed, using the same argument as that of (28), we obtain that for some
, the following is the case.
From Algorithm 4, (23), and (44), the following is obtained.
By rearranging, we obtain the desired inequality.
Step 4. We show the following.
Indeed, from Algorithm 4 and (23), one obtains the following:
which, hence, results in the desired assertion.
Step 5. We show that converges strongly to the unique solution of the VIP (20). Indeed, Step 5 of the proof of Theorem 1 provides the result.
Theorem 4. Let be nonexpansive and the sequence be constructed by :where for each , and are chosen in Algorithm 4. Then, the following is the case:where is the unique solution of the VIP: . Proof. Similar arguments as in the proof of Theorem 2 and Step 5 of Theorem 3 provide the conclusions. □
Remark 1. Our results complement the results in Kraikaew and Saejung [10], Ceng and Shang [11], and Reich et al. [12] in the following ways: - (i)
The problem of finding an element of in [10] is extended to develop our problem of finding an element of where is nonexpansive for , and is asymptotically nonexpansive. The Halpern subgradient extragradient method for solving VIP in [10] is extended to develop our Mann-type subgradient-like extragradient method with a line-search process for solving VIP and CFPP, which is based on Mann iteration method, subgradient extragradient method with line-search process, and viscosity approximation method. - (ii)
The results in [12] are extended to finding an element of . The modified projection-type method with linear-search process for solving the VIP in [12] is extended to develop our Mann-type subgradient-like extragradient method with line-search process for solving the VIP and CFPP, which is based on the Mann iteration method, subgradient extragradient method with line-search process, and viscosity approximation method. - (iii)
The problem of finding an element of with Lipschitz continuity and sequentially weak continuity mapping A in [11] is extended to finding an element of where A is uniformly continuous such that for each with . The hybrid inertial subgradient extragradient method with line-search process in [11] is generalized to Mann-type subgradient-like extragradient method with line-search process, e.g., the original inertial approach is replaced by our Mann iteration method , and the original iterative step is replaced by our simpler iterative one . It is worth mentioning that the definition of in the former formulation of is very different from the definition of in the latter formulation of . - (iv)
The method in [10] involves a combination of Halpern approximation method, subgradient extragradient method, and Mann iteration to find a common solution to variational inequalities and common fixed point problem involving quasi-nonexpansive mapping with strong convergence results obtained. The method in [11] solves a problem of finding a common solution to variational inequalities and common fixed point problem in which one of the operators is asymptotically nonexpansive and others are nonexpansive mappings. The method of [11] is a combination of the subgradient extragradient method, viscosity approximation and hybrid steepest-descent method, and strong convergence results obtained. In [12], a strongly convergent method that is a combination of projection-type method and viscosity approximation method is proposed to solve variational inequalities. Our proposed methods in this paper are proposed to solve variational inequalities and common fixed point problem for which one of the operators is asymptotically nonexpansive and others are nonexpansive, and A in the variational inequality is pseudomonotone and uniformly continuous (unlike [11] where A is Lipschitz continuous). One method involves a combination of the method proposed in [12] and viscosity approximation. In essence, our results in this paper reduce to the results in [12] when the operators in the common fixed point problem are identity mappings. Furthermore, our method does not involve the hybrid steepest-descent method and subgradient extragradient method used in [11]. Our results also serve as extensions of the results obtained in [10] in the setting of variational inequalities.